Edinburgh Tram developments

[leithside]

All in all, this project can be summed up in two sentences.

If this project was in any way technically feasible, or economically lucrative, or socially beneficial, and the council knew about it, I'm sure that they would have jumped on the bandwagon; surely it would be in the council long term plan, or there would have been favourable words, or a feasibility study saying that it was a good idea. On the contrary, the opposite is true. There have been many proposals and petitions asking for this project, in every possible manifestation since the line closed, and never once has the council decided to go along with it.

No tram line is even remotely economically lucrative in the sense of making money for the council. They cost far beyond what any revenues could repay, unlike the buses. It's simply a question of pretty opaque social and broader economic benefits, and thus largely political. Sentiments can change, as can places like Seafield, where there are big redevelopment plans.

 

[waverley47]

No tram line is even remotely economically lucrative in the sense of making money for the council. They cost far beyond what any revenues could repay, unlike the buses. It's simply a question of pretty opaque social and broader economic benefits, and thus largely political. Sentiments can change, as can places like Seafield, where there are big redevelopment plans.

Fundamentally, Edinburgh trams is a profitable entity, as evidenced by the fact that it did make a profit in 2016 and 2017, before the Leith extension opened. I'd expect to see it return to profitability when the statements are published at the end of next financial year.

The original loan taken out to finance the Edinburgh Trams was financed by farebox revenue, which means that the revenue was expected to repay the cost. Granted, not many lines can achieve this, but Edinburgh Trams on paper was supposed to*.

Yes I am aware of the financial debacle of the first section of line. Let's not relitigate that here, but fundamentally they screwed up by hiring a company that hadn't ever built a tram line before, on fixed price contracts, and asked them to take all of the risk. That went about as well as you can expect.

Now, full disclosure, I was part of the team asked to audit the business case used for the project, and we found that the business case stood up. If it hadn't been so horrendously mismanaged, it would have made a profit.

The loan from ScotGov to cover the cost of just getting the first section of line open is financed out of the farebox. That loan costs 8 and a bit million a year, I forget the exact amount.

If you divide the amount of money that Edinburgh Trams has lost in operating expenses since opening, it's about £50m in total, again I forget the exact amount.

£8m a year for eight years in money used to finance the loan from the Scottish Government, divided by the time that the line has been open, and you start to get to the point that had the initial section not been so horrendously mismanaged, it would be in the green.

 

[leithside]

Gosh. Where to start. Yes, there's been an 8.5m asset charge levied since 2018, but that's the only contribution from the trams to the costs of the build. It was levied because of the *additional* costs of completing the line, which the council had to find alone.

The original costs are not funded out of the very small farebox. How could they conceivably have been? It was invested based on Cost-Ben basis, like other infrastructure. CEC also got to charge fees to developers along the line. Incidentally, the trams company doesn't even fund asset renewals, like new ticket machines and the like.

Yes, it could be operationally profitable if it had, as planned, been allowed free use of the asset, but there isn't a chance you could ever profitably build and operate a tram line in the UK. Just as bus companies couldn't afford to build roads, one could add.

 

[Falcon1200]

The Edinburgh Sub has always struck me as an answer looking for a question; Apart from the operational difficulties, does it really go where people want to go? And if, as it seems it does not, is that not the reason it lost its passenger service in the first place?

 

[eoff]

Did the Fare take for Buses + Trams - operating costs appreciably overtake the previous fare take of Buses only - operating costs?
Would any new developments conceivably lead to a profit in a reasonable timescale if you took into consideration building costs?

 

[leithside]

The overall financial position of Trams + Bus versus Bus-only is worse for sure. Even if you take very dodgy 'operating profit' notions, the council are on the hook for lots more spending with the trams than they are with the buses, and they pulled buses off profitable routes because of the trams. The council also fund NEC card use on the trams, whereas it's Scotgov that pays on the buses. The proposed line 2 would cost £2bn to build. If you think a few million passengers might pay for the operating costs *and* repay a £2bn cost then prepare for disappointment. The initial investment by Scot Gov in the trams was based on the imputed CBR. When things went pear-shaped they capped their contribution at £500m and insisted on the CBR remaining above 1 (bear in mind many UK rail projects with projected CBRs of 3 or higher can't get funding).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2025 ==

The Edinburgh Sub has always struck me as an answer looking for a question; Apart from the operational difficulties, does it really go where people want to go? And if, as it seems it does not, is that not the reason it lost its passenger service in the first place?

Presumably it was loss making and a decision was made that it was more important to maintain loss-making services to places like Neilston than Morningside.

 

[VioletEclipse]

It's something which I've attempted many years ago but never managed anything decent, just wondering has anyone here made an edit of what an Urbos 3 would look like painted in the proper (pre 1956) tram livery?

 

[Kingston Dan]

The Edinburgh Sub has always struck me as an answer looking for a question; Apart from the operational difficulties, does it really go where people want to go? And if, as it seems it does not, is that not the reason it lost its passenger service in the first place?

I think that's fair. It closed at the same time as the North Leith branch from the Caley station which had a far better service with a roughly 20 minute interval in the morning and afternoon peaks. There was plenty of capacity at Princes Street to make that possible - but even in the early 60s there wasn't between Haymarket and Waverley (and the south sub services crossed the eastern throat at Waverley from the old platform 20/21 to the Abbeyhill junction) meaning services were barely hourly. Morningside I guess would have been the busiest station with a competitive journey time v buses of around 15 mins to Waverley, but with an hourly at best service why bother with the train when there's a bus every few minutes taking not much longer.

From Morningside eastwards the route is very circuitous and prime commuter territory is few and far between in the council schemes of Niddrie and Craigmillar at the east end.

If you could solve the Haymarket-Waverley capacity issue and find three or four slots an hour that didn't cross the throat at Waverley then a Morningside - Haymarket - Waverley - Abbeyhill (or possibly Leith Walk to connect with the trams) might be viable. But I couldn't see a circular service ever being viable.

 

[leithside]

I think that's fair. It closed at the same time as the North Leith branch from the Caley station which had a far better service with a roughly 20 minute interval in the morning and afternoon peaks. There was plenty of capacity at Princes Street to make that possible - but even in the early 60s there wasn't between Haymarket and Waverley (and the south sub services crossed the eastern throat at Waverley from the old platform 20/21 to the Abbeyhill junction) meaning services were barely hourly. Morningside I guess would have been the busiest station with a competitive journey time v buses of around 15 mins to Waverley, but with an hourly at best service why bother with the train when there's a bus every few minutes taking not much longer.

From Morningside eastwards the route is very circuitous and prime commuter territory is few and far between in the council schemes of Niddrie and Craigmillar at the east end.

If you could solve the Haymarket-Waverley capacity issue and find three or four slots an hour that didn't cross the throat at Waverley then a Morningside - Haymarket - Waverley - Abbeyhill (or possibly Leith Walk to connect with the trams) might be viable. But I couldn't see a circular service ever being viable.

But this suggestion is for trams using the line for part of their route. They are specifically saying you can't run on the main rail line in through Haymarket and Waverley.

 

[Kingston Dan]

But this suggestion is for trams using the line for part of their route. They are specifically saying you can't run on the main rail line in through Haymarket and Waverley.

Indeed - that's why I said if you could solve the capacity issues for heavy rail. But a cut down version of this scheme with a Morningside - Murrayfield/Haymarket branch only might work - but the eastern end is unlikely ever to generate enough traffic.

 

[leithside]

Indeed - that's why I said if you could solve the capacity issues for heavy rail. But a cut down version of this scheme with a Morningside - Murrayfield/Haymarket branch only might work - but the eastern end is unlikely ever to generate enough traffic.

I don't really think you've understood what's being proposed. There would be a tram from the airport to Portobello going through Gogar, the Gyle, Murrayfield, Morningside, Newington (connecting with tram line 2) and Fort Kinnaird. It's not actually a South Sub loop being proposed.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I don't really think you've understood what's being proposed. There would be a tram from the airport to Portobello going through Gogar, the Gyle, Murrayfield, Morningside, Newington (connecting with tram line 2) and Fort Kinnaird. It's not actually a South Sub loop being proposed.

Either way, it doesn’t work. The sub will never have the ability to make trams work in my opinion. It’s too valuable to Network Rail.

 

[leithside]

Either way, it doesn’t work. The sub will never have the ability to make trams work in my opinion. It’s too valuable to Network Rail.

You're probably right on that, but there's been a considerable shift to this new position of it being too busy/useful. At least this does open eyes to the fact it's currently an open functioning rail line.

 

[waverley47]

Gosh. Where to start. Yes, there's been an 8.5m asset charge levied since 2018, but that's the only contribution from the trams to the costs of the build. It was levied because of the *additional* costs of completing the line, which the council had to find alone.

The original costs are not funded out of the very small farebox. How could they conceivably have been? It was invested based on Cost-Ben basis, like other infrastructure. CEC also got to charge fees to developers along the line. Incidentally, the trams company doesn't even fund asset renewals, like new ticket machines and the like.

Yes, it could be operationally profitable if it had, as planned, been allowed free use of the asset, but there isn't a chance you could ever profitably build and operate a tram line in the UK. Just as bus companies couldn't afford to build roads, one could add.

Actually, in the original business case for the trams, which I've seen and gone through with a fine tooth comb for the enquiry, and which stood up to scrutiny until the council screwed up contracts, the cost of building the infrastructure was paid for by taking a loan against farebox revenue, and increased council tax rates on properties along the line.

Which means, in the eyes of the council, they absolutely expected it to be able to pay it's way, and fund itself.

You also say that the additional charge is levied against the additional costs, which I don't dispute. But surely, had the council not screwed up contracting, that means that such a levy would not be needed, and therefore, by discounting such a charge in the alternative universe where they hired competent people to build the thing, then the trams would be making enough money to pay back the loan taken to build them.

I don't dispute that trams are an expensive and complicated infrastructure intervention that can't really ever make a pure profit. It's more the equivalent of HS2, where the money used to build it is paid for by taking a loan against future revenue growth; that it pays for itself simply by virtue of it existing. You can't take that hypothetical money and spend it somewhere else, because the money doesn't exist until you build it, and that building it gives you the money to have built it in the first place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2025 ==

I don't really think you've understood what's being proposed. There would be a tram from the airport to Portobello going through Gogar, the Gyle, Murrayfield, Morningside, Newington (connecting with tram line 2) and Fort Kinnaird. It's not actually a South Sub loop being proposed.

Eh, they do also propose linking into the trams going east at Murrayfield, which means city centre to Morningside trams via Murrayfield.

So it is half of the loop, it just doesn't connect back into Princes St from Brunstane.

Either way, it's never going to happen, because the infrastructure interventions you'd need don't work. Any new tram line in Edinburgh wouldn't bass a basic BCR without trams to the city centre, it just so happens that this proposal doesn't pass it even with those trams to the centre.

 

[edwin_m]

But surely, had the council not screwed up contracting, that means that such a levy would not be needed, and therefore, by discounting such a charge in the alternative universe where they hired competent people to build the thing, then the trams would be making enough money to pay back the loan taken to build them.

Some of the overspend was likely due to costs that would have arisen whoever was building it and however they were managed, such as utilities that weren't identified at the time the budget was set. I wouldn't know what proportion that might be.

 

[waverley47]

Some of the overspend was likely due to costs that would have arisen whoever was building it and however they were managed, such as utilities that weren't identified at the time the budget was set. I wouldn't know what proportion that might be.

Well yes, but the problem and fault ultimately lies with the people that wrote the contract in the first place, because it was a fixed price contracts that put the cost for all of those extra little things onto a contractor that didn't know what they were doing, expecting them to pay for it.

A different contract that shared extra costs, or proper ground investigations, or a willingness to work with the contractor, or hiring a company that had built a tram line before, or any number of things might have saved the project from the omnishambles that it became.

 

[edwin_m]

A different contract that shared extra costs, or proper ground investigations, or a willingness to work with the contractor, or hiring a company that had built a tram line before, or any number of things might have saved the project from the omnishambles that it became.

Indeed so, but the final bill would still have been more than the initial estimate - though a lot less than it actually outturned.

 

[leithside]

Actually, in the original business case for the trams, which I've seen and gone through with a fine tooth comb for the enquiry, and which stood up to scrutiny until the council screwed up contracts, the cost of building the infrastructure was paid for by taking a loan against farebox revenue, and increased council tax rates on properties along the line.

Which means, in the eyes of the council, they absolutely expected it to be able to pay it's way, and fund itself.

I don't think you did actually go through it with a toothcomb, because there was a huge (and ultimately capped at £500m) *contribution* from Scotgov, not a loan. That was based on the economic returns, just like a road development. The council itself may well have thought it would produce more financial benefits than costs *to the council*, because its originally planned contribution was only about £45m, and it got to charge fees to developers along the line, but it's entirely false to say 'until the council screwed up the contracts, the cost of building the infrastructure was paid for by ...'

One of the problems of this kind of naive council PR about profitability is that a number of people out there think it's a 'no-brainer' to build line 2. I'm not necessarily against building it, but the huge costs need to be carefully and realistically weighed against the wider benefits, because it certainly can't pay its way all by itself.

 

[FtoE]

I’ve always thought a (relatively) straightforward way to improve accessibility to the tram from a densely populated area would be to create a straight-line route from Gorgie Rd (around Tynecastle) to Murrayfield tram stop.
It’s currently an unpleasant and very circuitous 15/ 20 minute walk. It would be about 5 mins as the crow flies.

 

[enginedin]

I’ve always thought a (relatively) straightforward way to improve accessibility to the tram from a densely populated area would be to create a straight-line route from Gorgie Rd (around Tynecastle) to Murrayfield tram stop.
It’s currently an unpleasant and very circuitous 15/ 20 minute walk. It would be about 5 mins as the crow flies.

yeh, that'd be nice - although the small issue of the distillery in the way!

 

[FtoE]

yeh, that'd be nice - although the small issue of the distillery in the way!

Don’t want to take things too off-topic but, depending on the plans for the old high school site, a straight line SW-NE route would only just nick the north-east corner of the distillery site.
But yes, the distillery and pharmaceutical factory really make access from Gorgie to M’field difficult.
I use the tram very regularly and the Murrayfield stop is (other than when the stadium is in use obvs) very lightly used.

 

[enginedin]

Can anyone access this article: https://www.railtech.com/all/2025/03/18/edinburgh-tram-trains-on-the-horizon/

(the website gateway access is broken - I've put in some email addresses to try and get my 1 free article for this month and it always says I've already had it, despite the fact I've never used the site before)

 

[Backroom_boy]

Can anyone access this article: https://www.railtech.com/all/2025/03/18/edinburgh-tram-trains-on-the-horizon/

(the website gateway access is broken - I've put in some email addresses to try and get my 1 free article for this month and it always says I've already had it, despite the fact I've never used the site before)

Just read the free summary; all about tram-trains on the south suburban

 

[neil henderson]

Can anyone access this article: https://www.railtech.com/all/2025/03/18/edinburgh-tram-trains-on-the-horizon/

(the website gateway access is broken - I've put in some email addresses to try and get my 1 free article for this month and it always says I've already had it, despite the fact I've never used the site before)

https://archive.ph/cZFvx should give you an archive copy of the article.

 

[702]

There's also "An artist's impressiion [sic] from the South Sub Group of trams operating on the leafy South Suburban Line in Edinburgh. © Image: South Sub Group and Heriot-Watt University", however the artist appears to be an AI.

 

[A330Alex]

Tap-on/Tap-off contactless capping to launch within “weeks”.

‘Tap on, tap off’ trials mark another milestone for city’s trams

It will soon be easier than ever to pay for travel on Edinburgh’s popular tram network as final tests get underway on a new ‘Tap on, Tap off’ payment system.

edinburghtrams.com

 

[oldman]

Tap-on/Tap-off contactless capping to launch within “weeks”.

How many validators do they have on each platform? This could be a problem at a busy stop like the Mound if alighting passengers have to get to the validator to tap off, while others are trying to tap on.

 

[MCR247]

How many validators do they have on each platform? This could be a problem at a busy stop like the Mound if alighting passengers have to get to the validator to tap off, while others are trying to tap on.

Whilst I haven’t been on the Edinburgh trams specifically yet, but if the passengers are anything like on other networks, the majority have passengers will have tapped in before the tram arrives as they’ll have done it when they first get to the platform

 

[Siemens Trains]

Whilst I haven’t been on the Edinburgh trams specifically yet, but if the passengers are anything like on other networks, the majority have passengers will have tapped in before the tram arrives as they’ll have done it when they first get to the platform

But I think the question is more about tapping off again at the end of the journey. If 100 passengers alight from the tram and there's only a single working validator on the platform then people might become impatient while waiting. From what I remember from a visit to Manchester this wasn't an issue, although most people weren't tapping off at all.

Hopefully there's a reliable way for onboard inspectors to check that a passenger has indeed tapped on beforehand. I don't recall being challenged in other cities with non-gated tapping systems, although I imagine Docklands Light Railway in London works like this.

 

[aaronspence]

Curious how the validators will work at Edinburgh airport, I used the tram last month at the rediculous price they charge to go from Gateway to the Airport, had my ticket checked once on the tram, then twice by two separate staff between the tram and the exit of the tram station at the airport... They are very keen to make sure you have a ticket there!